Sujeet Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned standing counsel.

The impugned order dated 21.8.2007 non-suits the Petitioner for being selected as a Constable in the U.P. Police Services on the ground that there was an incorrect and inappropriate disclosure with regard to the criminal case in which the Petitioner was involved and therefore, the affidavit filed by the Petitioner having been found to be false, the candidature was being cancelled.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the State and rejoinder affidavit to the same has also been filed. An amendment application has been filed praying for deletion of paragraph 25 of the writ petition and also for deleting certain words which have been transcribed on account of some typographical error.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also produced a copy of an identical affidavit in similar case and he contends that the nature of the declaration sought therein does not amount to a false affidavit on the part of the Petitioner. He submits that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and it deserves to be set-aside.

At the very outset it may be pointed out that the amendment as sought for particularly with regard to deletion of paragraph 25 of the writ petition cannot be permitted in as much as paragraph 25 clearly admits the existence of a criminal case and the non-disclosure of the said criminal case by the Petitioner on the ground that he was under an impression that the Petitioner having been acquitted was not required to make such disclosure.

The deletion of this paragraph will change the entire nature of the case and it is an admission which cannot be permitted to be resiled back from. The amendment, is accordingly rejected.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without giving notice or opportunity to him. The aforesaid contention may be correct in so far as giving of an opportunity to the Petitioner is concerned. However, in view of the counter affidavit and the facts which have now been brought on record, it is evident that the Petitioner has not been able to successfully deny the existence of the involvement of the Petitioner in a criminal case in which he was acquitted on 9.5.2005.

The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents brings on record the report of the police station which indicates the same. The aforesaid aspect is not being denied by the Petitioner, and the Petitioner had filed the affidavit without disclosing the aforesaid fact with regard to the acquittal in the criminal case.

The submission is that once the Petitioner was acquitted, it will be deemed that he was never involved in a criminal case and even otherwise non-mentioning in the affidavit will not amount to filing of a false affidavit.

In my opinion, the Petitioner was bound to disclose the said fact even if he had been acquitted in the case in order to ascertain his antecedents before being employed in a sensitive service like the police service. The employer is duty bound to gather information of the antecedents of a person before employing him in a sensitive service like the police service. The Petitioner was equally bound to disclose his antecedents even if he was acquitted. It is not a case where the Petitioner was not aware of any involvement. It is a case where the Petitioner was involved and he was according to the Respondents acquitted in the case.

This information may have been necessary for the purpose of assessment of the candidature of the Petitioner which was not disclosed by the Petitioner, who had knowledge about the same. Reference may be had to the decisions of this Court in the cases of Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2006 (4) ESC 2628 and Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2006 (5) ALJ 781.

In view of this, the non-disclosure of this fact disentitles the Petitioner for any relief.

The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.